05-19-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 411 Regular Meeting Page 5 porch could not be constructed on the front of the property, and a garage is located on the opposite side of the structure which would prohibit placement there. Mr. Murlowski stated that in 1996 a variance had been granted for the same purpose to a neighbor located directly across the street from the applicant's property. Commissioner Braathen stated that he had driven by the applicant's property and could see that the placement of the original deck lent itself to the construction of a porch. He stated that he had no objection to approving the request for a variance. Commissioner Miller asked if the proposed deck would be trellised. Mr. Murlowski stated that the applicant had planned on siding the porch in continuum with the rest of the structure. Commissioner Hegland asked if the subject property was zoned R2. Community Development Director Jopke stated that some of the homes in this district were zoned R2, although they are single family homes, and the requirements to meet the criteria are the same as those in R1 zoned properties. He stated that originally, all the properties were zoned R2, but in 1985 there was a re-subdivision of • some of the properties in order to accommodate more single family homes. Commissioner Hegland stated that the property in question was zoned R1, and that the variance which was previously granted pertained to R2 zoned property. He asked if there were changes in the Code regarding setbacks for twin-homes. He asked for clarification regarding the difference between single family homes and twin-homes. Ericson stated that a twin-home is defined as two dwelling units as opposed to a single family home. He stated that the side, front, and rear setbacks remain the same in either case. Commissioner Hegland asked if the lot size was substandard. Ericson stated that the lot size was substandard. He stated the PUD document pertaining to the Silver Lake Woods development had addressed the changes in the Code requirements, and had provided for a 5 percent increase in structure density, but he was unable to find any documentation supporting reduced setbacks. Chair Peterson noted that a property owner was granted a variance for a three-season porch on a side-yard on the east side of the development in the early 1990's. Commissioner Miller stated that the lot size is less than the 11,000 square feet normally required, and asked if this had been reviewed to determine if it could be considered an `exceptional circumstance' as set forth in the first criteria. Ericson stated that they were really only looking at the width of the lot which meets the requirement, 4110 but he had examined the matter of lot size and believed it could be considered an applicable hardship.